Name calling is the last refuge of a tired mind.
Wow. And there was I thinking it was drive-by posting without making a contribution to the thread that was the “last refuge”. Clearly, I am mistaken. I too would like the thread moved to the Pit, though I assure you the name I would like to call Wildfire does not break the insults rule.
Sure, homosexuality is unusual. Plenty of things are, as has been pointed out already. And while I wouldn’t agree that reproduction is the “primal task” of mankind, we seem to be doing a pretty good job of it collectively. What would an educated person say? In comparison to the OP and further posts made by them, pretty much all the other posts show better education.
the debate is:
Is homosexuality unatural seen from a basic viewpoint on mankind ?
It is not the result of some artificial outside influence. So yes, yes it is.
Define “unnatural.”
No, unless the definition of “basic” means “reduced to the absolute bare minimums of survival and reproduction that guide the lives of non-sentient animals” in which case the “mankind” reference is inappropriate.
An my answer is: Given what we know about closely related animals, it’s no more unnatural than having red hair or being a twin, and far more natural than wearing clothes, eating highly processed foods, and sitting at a computer typing messages to people all around ther world.
is the color of your hair something basic in mankind?
eating for survival and sex to breed is in my min basic needs
Let’s see now. It has been going on for thousands of years. Other species do it. Other species do not have all their members capable of procreation (e.g. ants and bees), so procreation by any individual member of a species is clearly not required for the survival of a species.
So, to answer your question, no it is not unnatural.
Oh, for…
Fine, I’m going to play along with you.
Based on what appears to be your definition, homosexuallity is not normal. One does not need to engage in homosexual sex acts in order to scratch out an existence or to meet “minimum basic needs.” If that is how we’re defining normal, then homosexuality doesn’t fit the bill (neither, of course, do any number of things, including ice cream sundaes, video games, classical music, and sex in the pursuit of joy).
So, fine.
Homosexuality is not normal.
Debate over? Or were you going somewhere with this?
You’re forgetting air and defecation, but anyway.
Sex to breed is in your minimum basic needs? You’ll die if you don’t breed? Nope, sex to breed isn’t in your minimum basic needs. And guess what? You breeding isn’t in mankind’s minimum needs, either. We, as a whole, don’t need you popping out sprogs to survive. All we need, assuming that continuing the human race is a “need”, is for *some * people to breed. Seeing as how the amount of new kiddies needed for us to continue as a race is easily met several thousand if not million times over, I think we’re safe if some gay people (and some straight people, too) don’t procreate.
You need to breed? What happens if you don’t? Does it shorten your lifespan?
You keep on switching from “natural” to “basic”, and they aren’t the same thing at all. Hair colour can be natural or unnatural, but no, it’s not basic.
And there are other basic things, essential to survival, including shelter and raising children after they have been begotten. (Newborn humans cannot survive on their own). Heterosexual sex is not all that there is to human life.
Everything we know about homosexuality tells us that it is inborn.* Can’t get any more “natural” than that, I’m afraid. One might call it “unnatural” if it were true that you could be “recruited into gayness” sometime during your life. And besides being gay (ie, being primarily attracted, sexually, to members of ones own sex), there is abundant evidence of sex between same-gendered partners in every human society every known, and many animal species as well.
Sorry, bub, but ain’t nuthin’ unnatural about it. It’s not my cup of tea and it doesn’t appear to be yours either, but that’s a different issue.
*maybe partially genetic, maybe due to exposure to certain hormones during pregnancy, maybe something else or a combination of different things, but not a choice someone makes about his or her own sexuality.
lets go 30.000 years back in time. There are a grouop of 4 men and 4 women on the stepps.
What are their basic needs?
- they nead to catch something to eat
- they nead to have sex to reproduce (men-women)
This is a very silly thread, and the self-contradictions apparent in the OP’s incoherent defense of the premise sealed that view in my mind as well.
If two of the men were homosexual, would it have made any long-term difference?
No, it doesn’t; for humans sexuality is for social purposes and fun at least as much as for breeding. We have low fertility, high sex drive and women have a hard to track fertility cycle; all of that fit the pattern of creatures for whom sex is not all about breeding. We aren’t cattle.
Obviously not, given that by the evidence people and animals are born homosexual. You don’t get more natural than that.
They might have had better taste in tent decorations, leading to higher cultural sensitivity in the offspring of their 6 colleagues.
What, all of them? They need to pair off and all have kids. And hey, if they don’t like each other, they should be *forced * to pair off.
Just in order to replace them, we need just 8 kids. Maybe two couples have 4 each. There we go - oh, but wait, two couples didn’t need to procreate. Gosh.
Oh, and again you’re mistaking their basic needs with needs for humanity’s survival. They do not need to reproduce. In order for humanity to survive, and assuming they are the only people alive, then yes, they need to reproduce. But not all of them. I’m thinking we should skip analogies, however, and go directly to the source - i’m sure their own thoughts and writings on this matter would be considerably more coherent than yours in this thread.